[2025:RJ-JP:19320] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2362/2002 Subhash Chand Kumawat S/o Late Shri Bheru Lal Kumawat, A- 95, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur At Present Posted As D.S.O., Jhalawar Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Food Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Additional Food Commissioner-Cum-Deputy Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan 3. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, through Registrar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Goyal Mr. Sumit Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Vijay for Mr. Lokendra Singh Rao, DyGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/05/2025 1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of filing instant civil writ petition, a challenge has been made by the petitioner to the order dated 04.06.1999 (Annexure-7), withdrawing the sanction of selection scale in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200, granted to petitioner under order dated 21.08.1996 (Annexure-5), as also to the consequential order dated 01.11.2001 (Annexure-10), whereunder recovery has been issued against petitioner pursuant to the impugned order [2025:RJ-JP:19320] (2 of 7) [CW-2362/2002] dated 04.06.1999 and simultaneously challenge has also been made to the order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure-9) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing petitioner’s appeal against impugned order dated 04.06.1999. 3. The petitioner has come up with a case, as pleaded in the writ petition, that although initially he was appointed on the post of Enforcement Inspector on temporary basis vide order dated 31.03.1972, however, vide subsequent order dated 23.07.1973, he has been appointed on the post of Enforcement Officer and later on, has been confirmed on such post vide order dated 13.08.1981. It has further been pleaded that a seniority list dated 10.04.1990 was prepared by the department, including the persons, who were directly appointed on the post of Enforcement Officer and in that seniority list, petitioner was placed senior to the direct recruitees, but since the persons junior to the petitioner were fixed in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200, whereas second selection scale to petitioner, on completion of 18 years of service, was granted in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, hence, petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for fixing his salary in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 instead of Rs.1640-2900 claiming equality and parity with the direct recruitees, who were otherwise junior to the petitioner as per the seniority list on the post of Enforcement Officer. On such representation of the petitioner, respondents vide order dated 21.08.1996 (Annexure-5) fixed the salary of petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200, but later on, when other persons also claimed same pay scale, the matter was placed before the Finance Department and on the [2025:RJ-JP:19320] (3 of 7) [CW-2362/2002] instructions of the Finance Department, the benefits accorded to the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 21.08.1996, were withdrawn vide order dated 04.06.1999. The order dated 04.06.1999 has been impugned by the petitioner, fundamentally on the ground that same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and since, pursuant to the order dated 04.06.1999, recovery of the benefits, already paid to the petitioner, has been sought to be recovered, same has civil consequences, hence, the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 4. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.06.1999 before the Tribunal has erroneously been dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2000 under wrong pretext that under the order dated 23.07.1973, petitioner was promoted to the post of Enforcement Officer from the post of Enforcement Inspector whereas, as a matter of fact and indisputably, under the Rajasthan Food & Civil Supplies Subordinate Service (Initial Constitution & Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1973’), appointment on the post of Enforcement Officer is not provided on promotion basis rather Rule 5 envisages that the employees, who were holding the post of Enforcement Officer for a continuous period of six months temporarily, may be selected for appointment on the post of Enforcement Officer by the Screening Committee and the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Enforcement Officer by the Screening Committee vide order dated 23.07.1973 is direct appointment and not by way of promotion. It [2025:RJ-JP:19320] (4 of 7) [CW-2362/2002] has been submitted that mention of word ‘promotion’ in the order dated 23.07.1973 is insignificant and liable to be ignored being dehors to the Scheme of the Rules of 1973. Thus, it has finally been prayed that the order impugned dated 04.06.1999 and the consequential order of recovery dated 01.11.2001 be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, during the course of arguments, does not dispute the fact that the order impugned dated 04.06.1999 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents is fair enough to bring to the notice of this Court that in the identical set of facts in case of another employee, namely, Hari Ram Choudhary, order dated 04.06.1999 has been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.03.2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3182/1999 titled as Hari Ram Choudhary Versus State & Anr., and the respondents were let free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due compliance of the principles of natural justice. Hence, learned Deputy Government Counsel submits that instant writ petition may also be decided on similar lines. However, it is noteworthy that learned Deputy Government Counsel admits that no fresh order came to be passed by the respondents in case of Hari Ram Choudhary (supra) and no recovery against him has been made. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has also placed reliance on the order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in case of Hari Ram Choudhary (supra), but submits [2025:RJ-JP:19320] (5 of 7) [CW-2362/2002] that taking into consideration the subsequent facts of the case at hand, and the fact that no fresh order has ever been passed by the respondents in case of Hari Ram Choudhary (supra), despite granting liberty as admitted by the Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents, no such liberty be extended to the respondents while quashing the order impugned dated 04.06.1999 and consequential order of recovery dated 01.11.2001 being violative to the principles of natural justice. 7. It has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has retired from the service w.e.f. 31.08.2011 and the pensionary benefits have been released to him on furnishing an indemnity bond by the petitioner on 08.08.2011 that in case of recovery, pursuant to the order impugned dated 04.06.1999, is upheld by the High Court in the present writ petition, he will deposit the same in the Government Exchequer. A copy of the indemnity bond dated 08.08.2011, sworn by the petitioner is available on record. Thus, his prayer is that in such subsequent development of the facts in the present case, the order impugned dated 04.06.1999 and the order of recovery dated 01.11.2001 be quashed and set aside and no recovery be permitted from the petitioner out of his pensionary benefits. 8. Having pondered over the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, it has emerged as an undisputed fact that the order impugned dated 04.06.1999, withdrawing the grant of benefit of selection scale to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200, was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in violation of the [2025:RJ-JP:19320] (6 of 7) [CW-2362/2002] principles of natural justice. Further, consequent to such order, respondents have sought to recover the benefits already paid to the petitioner by issuing a recovery order dated 01.11.2001. It is noteworthy that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, following the breach of principles of natural justice has quashed the similar nature of order passed against one Shri Hari Ram Choudhary and though liberty was granted to respondents to pass fresh order, but admittedly no fresh order has been passed. 9. The petitioner, in the present case, has stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2011 and pensionary benefits have been released to him on furnishing an indemnity bond dated 08.08.2011 to redeposit the benefits in the Government Exchequer, if recovery of benefits pursuant to the impugned order dated 04.06.1999 is affirmed by the High Court in the present writ petition. 10. Thus, taking into consideration the factum of retirement of the petitioner and in view of undisputed fact that the order dated 04.06.1999 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, this Court is not entering into merits of the issue as to whether petitioner was appointed on the post of Enforcement Officer by way of promotion or directly under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1973, the order impugned dated 04.06.1999 (Annexure-7), to the extent of directing to recover the benefits from the petitioner, as also the consequential order of recovery dated 01.11.2001 (Annexure-10) are hereby quashed and set aside being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Since, petitioner has already retired from the service w.e.f. 31.08.2011, no recovery from petitioner be [2025:RJ-JP:19320] (7 of 7) [CW-2362/2002] made pursuant to the order impugned dated 04.06.1999. As a consequence, order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.10.2000 also stands nullified. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J SUNIL SOLANKI/PS